Allstate Life Insurance Company v. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., et al.

Filing
120

AMENDED ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: (1) Plas' 109 Joint Motion to Amend their Complaints is GRANTED; (2) Pla Allstate is directed to file its Amended Complaint and the Class-Action Plas are directed to file their Second Amended Complaint and serve the amended pleadings on all parties under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order; (3) Dfts' 115 Motion requesting a new briefing schedule and permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits is GRANTED; (4) Dfts SHALL have forty-five (45) days, or until 4/16/2010, to file new motions to dismiss; Plas shall have forty-five (days), or until 6/1/2010 to respond; and Dfts wil l have twenty-one days (21), or until 6/22/2010 to file their replies. No further extensions to these deadlines will be granted; (5) Dfts SHALL strictly adhere to the following page limitations when filing their motions to dismiss: Underwriters - 40 pages, The Town of Prescott Valley - 17 pages, The Law Firms - 30 pages, The Fain Entities - 17, pages; TL Hocking & Associates - 17 pages, The Authority -17 pages, Global Entertainment - 17 pages, and Prescott Valley Event Center - 17 pages; (6) The following Motions to Dismiss 75 , 76 , 80 , 81 , and 85 are DENIED as moot. (7) The following requests for judicial notice, 73 and 106 , are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/3/10. (SAT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Allstate Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., et. al., Defendants. Ronald Covin, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Lead Case No. CV-09-8162-PCT-GMS Consolidated with: Case No. CV-09-1874-PCT-GMS AMENDED ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Amend their respective complaints (Dkt. # 109), and Defendants' Motion requesting a new briefing schedule as well as permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits (Dkt. # 115). The Court grants both Motions. To begin, Plaintiffs move to amend their respective complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Here, it appears that the proposed amendment, which is unopposed, has been made in good faith and will facilitate a determination of the issues on the merits. See United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court therefore, grants the Motion to Amend.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// ///
The Court also grants Defendants' Motion for a new briefing schedule and their request to consolidate the motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limitations. While Plaintiffs desire to proceed with the currently pending motions to dismiss, the Court finds that such an approach would ultimately prove to be confusing and inefficient. The issues in this case appear to be complex, multifarious, and may be time consuming. Thus, permitting the parties to proceed based on Defendants' new briefing schedule will simplify and consolidate the various issues presented by the amended complaints. Moreover, because the amended complaints may obviate the need to address some of the issues presented in the original motions to dismiss, Defendants' proposed briefing schedule allows the parties to ensure that only those issues that are pertinent to the amended complaints are raised in the motions to dismiss. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: (1) Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Amend their Complaints is GRANTED (Dkt. # 109); (2) Plaintiff Allstate is directed to file its Amended Complaint and the Class-Action Plaintiffs are directed to file their Second Amended Complaint and serve the amended pleadings on all parties under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order; (3) Defendants' Motion requesting a new briefing schedule and permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits is GRANTED (Dkt. # 115); (4) Defendants SHALL have forty-five (45) days, or until April 16, 2010, to file new motions to dismiss; Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (days), or until June 1, 2010 to respond; and Defendants will have twenty-one days (21), or until June 22, 2010 to file their replies. No further extensions to these deadlines will be granted; (5) Defendants SHALL strictly adhere to the following page limitations when filing their motions to dismiss: Underwriters­40 pages, The Town of Prescott Valley­17 pages, The Law Firms­30 pages, The Fain Entities­17, pages; TL Hocking & Associates­17 pages, The Authority­17 pages, Global Entertainment­17 pages, and Prescott Valley Event Center­17 pages; (6) The following Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 75, 76, 80, 81, & 85;
-2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(7) The following requests for judicial notice are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 73 & 106. DATED this 3rd day of March, 2010.
-3-

The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.